This article has a history, includnig being a SATIRE of the BIGOTRY of the mianstrream emdia (including Wolf Blitzer and CNN). See previous articles posted on this blog this week..
But this really started in the 2008 Presidential campaign, whenb the BIGOTED left (including the leftist mainstream media) came after Mitt Romney ON RELIGION. As readers of this blog know, this blog conducted a Sodom land Gomorrah search--I will never forgive Him for that assignment, which I am still convinced was petty punishjment for my agnosticism--for an honewst competent Associated Press reporter. As part of that futile search (no such creature exists), which took place over at least 8 yyears, this blog REPORTED on one of the most disgraceful AP stories ever written. The story was "featured" on AOL, and made a big deal :(A P reporters are RELIGIOUS BIOGTS, and were then, as well) out of Mitt Romney's GREAT-GRANDFATHER being a polygamist (HORRS!!!!!!---the SARCASETIC word I used then and use now). This was a DISGRACEFUL story, on many levels, not JSUT BIGOTRY. The Mormon religion--the mainstream religion to which Romney beongs--gave up polygamy in the 19th Century (basically as a condition of Utah becomming a state). It is FALSE BIGOTRY to try to taint MODERN Mormons with the history of polygamy, and that is not changed by the "heretics" who stick by the old polygamist philosophy.
But look at what the EViL AP was teling you, as this blog pointed out at the time. First the HYPOCRITES of the AP were teling you that it MATTERS taht Mitt Romney's "great-grandfather" was a polygamist, while it does not matter that Barack Obama's GRANDFATHER was almsot lsurely a poolygamist (and we may not be that sure about his father). Unlike the "establishment" Mormon religion in the U.S., to which Mitt Romney has always belogned, MUSLMS (the religion to which OBAMA'S ancestors, on his fatrher's side, belonnged) have not really given up polygamy to this day. (and not just FRINGE groups). Osama bin Laden had multiple wives. Okay. the AP, CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. This blog has shown you that time and time again. But the EVIL of this story did not stop there.
Look at GUITL BY ASSOCIATION., and the DISCRFEDITED idea that a person is repsonsible for the sins of his ancestors. Sure, this is HYOCRISY. But it is EVIL in and of itself, and that is exaclty what the desiccable AP was telling you was RELEVANT with regard to Mitt Romney, but NOT relevant with regard to Barakck Obama. The despicable AP was simply NOT INTERESTED in the famiy history of Barack Obama. No, I am not talkng aoubt the KOOK idea that Presdient Obama is PRESENTLY a Muslim, when the fact is that he presently has no religoin at all (NOT being a Christian, as Bill Maher and I agree).. But Obama had MUSLIM ancestors, and DID attend that Muslim shcool in Indonesia. It is virtually certain--aain, the mainstream media being uninterested--that Obama's GRAnDFATHER was a polygamist. Why is that RELEVANT to Romney, as to a GREAT-GRANDFATHER, but NOT relevant as to Obama (for a GRANDFATHERl). The mainstream media could argue a thousand years,a nd not explain it. But they ocono't care. This is another reason they are EVIL people, as I said in 2008. Thus, the AP story alomst shouted that the "sins of the fathers",, and even the "sins of the great-grandfathers", can be visited upon the children, and that mere ASSCOCIATION with the Mormon Chhruch made Mitt Romney "guitlty" of EVERY SIN ever committed by the Mormon Chruch. If that is so, WHJY is Barack Obama not RESPOSNIBLE for the ANTI-AMERICAN HATE of REveerend Wright (not even metnitoned int he headline), who Obama regarded as a MENTOR for 20 years? There is a much GETTER case for that than that Romney is responsible for every sin ever committed by the Mormon Chruch (which, after all, probably do not measure up to the SINS commmitted by the CHRISTIAN CHURCH (such as in the days of the Spanish Inquisitin). These "sins", bby the way, INCLUDE POLYGAMY (in the Old Testament, adopted by the Christian Chruch, although that church coulduld not really exist before Christ). I am serius. The blog headline does nto even go far enough. As far as a SPECIFIC religion, Barack Obama has MUCH MORE to answer for, iwth Reverend Wright, than Mitt Romney. You will again remember that Reverend Wright asserted that the CIA was DELIBERATELY destroying black men by providing them with illegal drugs. It was Reverend Wright who said: "God damn America". And that was not even all of the hatred that REverend Wright spewed out, in his obsessive RACISM of looking at the world as a "right" agaisnt "white Europeans".
Obama himsself admits that the was RAISED AN ATHEIST, and did not even "come to Christ" unitl at least age 18. The mainsteream media would have you believe that this is IIRELEVANT for Obama,, but that ROMNEY is responsbiel for the "racism" of the Mormon Chruch when Mitt Romney was about the SAME AGE taht Barack Obama has ADMITTED using cociane, and illlegal drugs. No allegation that ROMNEY has engaged in racism. Only that his CHURCH--like Reverend Wright--had that racist idea that black peoople could not fully participate in the Mormon Church. This absurd positon--agina, as with the idea of RACIAL PREERENCES urged by the left)--falls apart on the problem of DEFINITION. Who the Hell is realy black? Obama? 18? 1/16? Whoever Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say? This is reallly just another way of syaing that there is NO SUCH THING as "racial blood". The blood of all homo sapiens individuals, in air, is RED, and there is NO "test" for whether your "bloogd" is "balck" for "white". Nevertheless, the Mormon curch position was NOT a positon that sayid that blacks should be "dicrimniated against" generally, but only that they could not--for THEOLOGOCIAL reasons--be FULL participants in the Mormon religoni. This postion was REVERSED by a THEOLOGICAL REVELATION, while Romney wsa still a young man (and not part of chruch policy). Obama's association with Reverend Wright lasted until 2008, when Obama HAD to disassociazte himself FOR OLITICAL REASONS. Notic ethat while the case againset Obama being "tainted" by association with rEverend Wright is BETTER than teh case agasint Mitt Romney for being associated with the Mormon church, as far as a dirct "taint" for the "positons" of the church, almost NO ONE realyl opposes Barack Obama or Mitt Romney BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGINO. Tis is all SMEAR--even if I htink there is more substance to ethe SMER of Obama for hsi close association with REverend Wright than there is for Rmmey merely because of the THEOLOGICAL positons of the Mormon church.
Ype. We are now to the amazing recent allegations that Mitt Romney is "not realy a Christian", because he is a Mormon (HORROS!!!!--sarcasm again, directed at WOLF BLIITZER and the EVIL PEOPLE of CNN and the mainstream media). Then you have the DEMOCRAT govvernor of Montana trying to say that people should vote against Mitt Romney because Romney's FATHER was a "member of a polygamist commune in Mexico"--even though Mitt Romney's father was GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, a canddiate for lPresident of the United States, and married ot the same ONE WOMAN for a lot of eyars. I did not really think that leftist Democrats (yep, taht is what the Democrat governor of Montana IS) and the leftist medai could get any WORSE lthan 2008, but they have managed it. These--leftist Democrats, including the leftist media, such as Wolf Blitzer and CNN--people are EVIL POPLE enganging in EVIL. notice that I was a YONG MAN when Mitt Romney's father ran for Presdient. Tis BIGOTRY agaisnt Mormons, for POLITICAL purposes, was not nearly so evident. And it is NOT because of the rise of the "Christian right". It is because of teh LEFTIST MEDIA, who thingk they can USE the STUPIDITY of evangelical Christians to advance the MEDIA AGENDA in favor of Obama (it bein gTHHE MEDIA how think evangelical Christians are stupid--not me)
Prolbem for this sudden asserrtin by CNN, Wolf Blitzer and the erest that Romney is not a Christian (a totally THELOGICAL questin, as Romney says he is a Mormn, and the questin of whethe ra Mrormon is a Christian is a THEOLOGICAL debate totally irreelevant to ANY politi cal issue, unless you are as EVIL as Wolf Blitzer). : PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN, AND THAT MAKES HIM A LIEAR AND A HYPOCRITE (Beill Maher and The Maverick Conservative--the two most noted agnostics in the country--agreeing that Obama is NOT a Christian, but a "secular humanist", whihc was Maher's term wiht which I agree). How can supporters of Obama, like the mainstream media, take on Romney as not being a Christian wihthout addressing the questin of whether Obama is really a Christain? Easy, of course. They are DISHONEST HYPOCRITES. Andno, this should not be an "issue" in a political campaign, but CNN, Wolf Blitzer and the rest are eVIL people who are willing to TRY to make it a MAJOR issue to SUPPRESS the "evangelical vote". These are some of the most EVIL peple who have ever lived., and they are doing their best to DESTROY this country. But, as this blog has told yu, I have NO FEAR on religon (one reason I am an agnostic). This means that I will FIGHT the "battle' on the media's ground, if only to show you how EVIL they reall are to even get us into this "deate".
President Obama is NOT a Christian. There is actually LITTLE evidence that he is. He was RAISED an atheist. There apears to be NO "family history" (recent) of Christians. He SUPPOSEDLY "converted" to Christianity wwith the ANTI-AMERICAN, racist Reverend Wright as his "mentor". This was a "conversion" that was CONVENIENT for Obama's political career in Chicago. Except when he makes a DELIBGERATE EFFORT, usually wih a teleprompter, Obama does not TALK like he regards his religion as important in his life. I KNOW, as an agnostic myself.. Obama supports the ACLU almost down the line, and that is an ANTI-CHISTIAN organizatin. Obama MISQUOTES the Declaratn of Indppendence to leave out "by their Creator". He talks about people "clinging to their religion". He wass willing ot throw Reverend Wright under the bus, for POLITICAL reasons, but did NOT 'move on" to a Christian church of the same type. He has "moved on" to NO speciafic Chrsiitan religino at all, which the mainstream media (chutzpah here, or hutzpah or however that Jewish word is now spelled) is trying to USE agaisnt Mitt Romney. The media feels that they can GET AWAY with Obama being merelly a "generic" Christian, wihout any SPECIFIC BELIEFS subject to ATTTAcK, as they delcare Obama' s previuos Reverend Wright associaton to be "in the past". If you realyl buy that one, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I can show you: for ssale, cheap.
No. The GREAT WEIGHT of the evidence is that Presdient Obama is not really a believing Christian, and that Bill Mahher and The Maverick Conservative are right.
Thus, you can see that the headline is basically absoutely accurate. Obama does have close FAMILY connectins to both the Muslim religin and to POLYGAMY. Obama ADMITTED in his book using cocaaine, at about the same time Romney was NOT involved n the alleged THEOLOGICAL RACISM of the Mormon church (in the past, like REverend Wright). Obama has even recently said that he was essentailly RAISED AN ATHEIST. Presdient Obama, did NOT move to anothe,r, similar, church, after thworing REverend Wright under the bus. All he does is claim a sorrt of "generic" Christian religin. Exacly why, again, is it not MORE LIKELY that Obama is not a Christian? VASTLY more likely? Again, look a the situation if Obama is not really a believing Christian. This is NOT a THEOLOGICAL quesiton, based totally on RELIGION. This is a question of HYPOCRISY and HONESTY. If Obama is not really a Christian, then he is a dhshonest opportunist.
No. This arlice should make one thing cliear to you: It may THEORETICALLY be relecant whether Presdient Obama is a dhsnonest opportunist on relign. But the ISSUE is just an EVIL one upon which to base a policial leecitn, whehter you are tlakng aoubt Obam or Romney. (even wrose, since the issue there is totally THEOLOGICAL). You should be able to tell why I think Wolf Bliltzer, the peole of CNN, the peolle of the despicable AP, and the rest how thing like them, are some of the most EVIL people who have ever lived. But i they are gong to keep gong down this EvIL road, then so will The Maverick Conservative--all of the way to November.As stated, I have NO FEAR of relision, and there is NO PART of religon I am not eiwilling to discuss. And I am more than willng to keep discussing teh OBVIUS (to me and Bill Maher) fact that Presdient Obama is not a Christian. Notcie tha t you have a perfect righ tto your PEROSNAL OPNION aS to which candidate fits best with yoru religious beliefs. It should simply not be an ISSUE. And I don't really thnk yo HULLD decide to vote based on whether a person "shares" your religni. As I have noted before, evangelical Christians would be MUCH better off, on almost every POLICY matter, supporteng ME--an "admitted" agnostic--as Presdient, than supporting alomsot any leftist Democrat who may claim to be a "Christian". I think their are tow real questions for a person who actually believes in his religin:
1. Which cnadidate will be best for the country.
2. Which candidate will best help create a COUNTRY most tolerant of my religioius beliefs, and most likely to advance the POLICIES that my religious beliefs may cause me to beelieve in.
As I have said, in the traditin of Harry Reid ("I don't see how any Hispanic could ever vote for a Republican"): I don't see how any BELIEVING Christian can vote for Barack Obama. It is not that it matters whether Obama is really a Christian, although he is not. It is that Obama, and peole who think like him (like Bill Maher) really are conducting a WAR ON RELIGNO (espececially the Christian religin).
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Is there really any CHRISTIAN out there SUTPID enough to vote agaisnt Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, even though that person realizes that person realizes that Barack Obama--as a matter of POLICY-is going after Christian churches and beliefs in this country? Wolf Blitzer and CNN--anti-Christian BIGOTS that they are--really do think that evangelical Christians (especiallly) ARE that stupid. I do not. Now I ma sure there are SMOE peole who are really Christians--hard as it is for me to believe--who will vote fopr Barack Obama because they think he, on balnce,, is more likely to adance their primary POLICY positinis thatn Mitt Romney. Fine. I have no real problem with that, except with your judgement (not as to refusing to vote for Romney, but as to voting for Obama), but there is nothing wrong with that. What I hope does not exist is a Christian who will vote AGAINST Mitt Romney becasue of his religon, sinc e I think you are biting off your nose to spite your face. "But, Skip, your own positon is that you can't vote for Mitt Romney". That is true, becasue I jsut can't face voting for a man who I think is little better than Obama, and hwo will totaly discredit conversatism. However, I am tallkng aobut RELIGION here. You Christians out there simply cannot let the media "play you like a violin" on IRRELEVANT things. If you really think taht Mitt Romney will not ADVANCE your POLICY desires any more than Barack Obama will, then you are agreeing with me (a positin that has received a lot of flak, even from memy own family, and with some justice). If you think , however, that Mitt Romney (without considering thoeology) will ADVAnCE your POLICY desieres better than Barakc Obama, then I amm willng to say you are STUPID not to vote for Mitt Romney on totally RELIGIOUS rounds. That is exaclty what Wolf Blitzer and the mdia are tryng to DO TO YOU, and you need to recognize it. If you have MY positoin on Romney, then I am with you. If you want to let RELIGION get int he way of PRACTICALLY ADVANCING THE CAUSES IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE, then I insist you are being stuid. You should recognize one of the tings that this blog has been tryiong to get across to you, as illustrated by the fictional El mer Gantry: It is NOT POSSIBLE to really know whether a man or woman is SINCERE n his or her religon. I am convinced Barack Obama is NOT a Christian, but I am not absolutely CERTAIN. I, hoever, AM CERTAIN that YOU cannot KNOW that Barack Obama is a Christian. And I would say the same aobut Mike Huckabee, or anybody else. No, I would not "doubt" Miek Huckabee as much as I doubt Obama, but I KNOW that you do not KNOW that Mike Huckabee is sincere. You may belieggve it, but you cannot know. I have said before that I am a SKEPTIC, and that means being SKEPTICAL of even skepticism. However, that applies to GOD. It is imossible for me to say that you CanNOT KNOW whether a Chrsitian God exists. But EXPERIECNE shows, that it is ossible fo r INSINCERE people to be VERY CONVINCING (even as to relign). I guess I would say that MY RELIGIN meanst that I am gong too far to even say that you CANNOT KNOW that Mike Huckabeee is realy a Chrsitan. Negertheless, I hhink that is about as close to an aboslute truth as there is. Human beings are fallible, both in BEING con men like Elmer Gantry, and in BELIEVEING in con men like Elmer Gantry. Sure, you can be jsut as fallibele as to JUDGMENT in electing a Presdient, wihout even getting into religino. But why COMPLICATE your problems by trying to make a jusdment on RELIGION, as well as a judgment on WHICH CANDIATE will best advance the coutnry toward the country you want it to be? I see no reason why you should be that stupid Yes, it is a natural tendency to TRUST someone who appears to think like you do (as Jews trlusted Bernie Madooff). There is nothign even wrong with taht, all things being equal otherwise. But all things are rarely otehrwise equal. You mmight also consider whether GOD might have a PLAN that inclujdes an ATEIST (like me, altough I consider militant atehists intolerant, while I have nothing at all agaisnt the Chrsitian religin--any Christian religin) a Presdient of the United States as teh way to BEST advance His religion. That is the problem. Theology is theology, and it realy has little to do with politics. IN politics, you should do our best to go for the politician who willl ADVANCE tghe coutntry toward the kind of country you wnat it to be, which includes the policies that your RELIGION may lead you to beieve are important, but which you dare not include trying to figure out the "true" THEOLOGY of candidates. Your job is hard enough without that latter mistake, as proven by your (oru?--although I dond not vote for him) lection of Barack Obama in the first place. See how littel FEAR I ahve of discussing religni. Now, if I only had FEAR of being terminally wordy and boring, you would regard yourself as better off.